# Fractivists Weep



## Railroad

Despite claims from anti-fracking activists that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water, a new study by the University of Texas found the process actually saves water and prevents droughts.


  “The bottom line is that hydraulic fracturing, by boosting natural  gas production and moving the state from water-intensive coal  technologies, makes our electric power system more drought-resilient,”  Bridget Scanlon, senior research scientist at UT’s Bureau of Economic  Geology, said.

Fracktivists weep: Fracking saves water and prevents droughts, says study | Fox News


----------



## Curious99

Railroad said:


> Despite claims from anti-fracking activists that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water, a new study by the University of Texas found the process actually saves water and prevents droughts.
> 
> 
> “The bottom line is that hydraulic fracturing, by boosting natural  gas production and moving the state from water-intensive coal  technologies, makes our electric power system more drought-resilient,”  Bridget Scanlon, senior research scientist at UT’s Bureau of Economic  Geology, said.
> 
> Fracktivists weep: Fracking saves water and prevents droughts, says study | Fox News



I tried clicking through the links to get the original Texas study and got "This page can’t be displayed". Is this legitimate?


----------



## Curious99

University Study: Fox Viewers More Misinformed - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)

I do not trust Fox news. They are not a legitimate news organization and they will deliberately mislead the reader.


----------



## Railroad

Curious99 said:


> University Study: Fox Viewers More Misinformed - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)
> 
> I do not trust Fox news. They are not a legitimate news organization and they will deliberately mislead the reader.




I certainly understand your point of view.  But I don't trust your source any more than you trust mine.


----------



## Railroad

Curious99 said:


> I tried clicking through the links to get the original Texas study and got "This page can’t be displayed". Is this legitimate?



I don't know about the original study - I'd go through the University of Texas web site if I wanted to read the study.


----------



## Larry Gude

And more nuke plants would reduce any need to do hydrological fracturing of the earth. 

It's tough to defend a process like this.


----------



## Railroad

Larry Gude said:


> And more nuke plants would reduce any need to do hydrological fracturing of the earth.
> 
> It's tough to defend a process like this.



I agree with the nuclear solution.  Much more preferable than the other solutions.  This is part of the reason that choosing against nuclear power is so problematic.


----------



## Gilligan

Curious99 said:


> University Study: Fox Viewers More Misinformed - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)
> 
> I do not trust Fox news. They are not a legitimate news organization and they will deliberately mislead the reader.


----------



## SamSpade

Curious99 said:


> I tried clicking through the links to get the original Texas study and got "This page can’t be displayed". Is this legitimate?



How far did you go?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045033/article?fromSearchPage=true


----------



## Larry Gude

Railroad said:


> I agree with the nuclear solution.  Much more preferable than the other solutions.  This is part of the reason that choosing against nuclear power is so problematic.



The problem with nuke is how many jobs it wipes out which, yet again, leads us to the strange bedfellows of the D party;  environmental activists and coal miners.


----------



## GURPS

Larry Gude said:


> The problem with nuke is how many jobs it wipes out which, yet again, leads us to the strange bedfellows of the D party;  environmental activists and coal miners.




how does Nuclear Power cost JOBS ?
someone has to work there ....


----------



## Larry Gude

GURPS said:


> how does Nuclear Power cost JOBS ?
> someone has to work there ....



Come on! 

So, you design and build the thing. Supply materials. Then, you get into operations, maintenance and repairs and general staffing, security, janitorial, front office, etc. 

That is NOTHING compared to all the jobs that go in those same sort of jobs, design, engineering, general staff, M&R and then the how ever many jobs involved in the constant supply of coal. Or nat gas. 

It doesn't 'cost' jobs per se. It is less, way less jobs, than coal.


----------



## GURPS

Larry Gude said:


> Come on!
> 
> It doesn't 'cost' jobs per se. It is less, way less jobs, than coal.



I am thinking the support is a larger foot print than you think


----------



## b23hqb

Agreed. High-tech construction + stringent safety regulations for initial outlay = large loss of jobs for the old way in the near future.

Nuclear is costly initially, but extremely cost effective and non-labor intensive afterward. Unless you live(d) in or near Chernobyl or Fukushima, sadly.


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> Agreed. High-tech construction + stringent safety regulations for initial outlay = large loss of jobs for the old way in the near future.
> 
> Nuclear is costly initially, but extremely cost effective and non-labor intensive afterward. Unless you live(d) in or near Chernobyl or Fukushima, sadly.



You tell 'em!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

I find it a bit hard to believe that fracking actually uses less water. 

They pressure pump water down a well, while coal and nuke plants simply pump in river water.

unless I'm missing something...


----------



## acommondisaster

Chris0nllyn said:


> I find it a bit hard to believe that fracking actually uses less water.
> 
> They pressure pump water down a well, while coal and nuke plants simply pump in river water.
> 
> unless I'm missing something...



They reuse the wastewater.


----------



## Curious99

Chris0nllyn said:


> I find it a bit hard to believe that fracking actually uses less water.
> 
> They pressure pump water down a well, while coal and nuke plants simply pump in river water.
> 
> unless I'm missing something...


Thanks SamSpade for finding the paper.
A coal or nuke plant heats water to run a steam turbine whereas a gas plant uses a direct combustion turbine to generate power – no water necessary. The paper says the water savings at the power plant end more than offset the millions of gallons necessary to frack the gas well. 
In that way it can help a region like Texas deal with a drought although it doesn’t prevent a drought.
The paper does not address the groundwater contamination issue at the well site.


----------



## acommondisaster

Please explain ground water pollution at the well site.


----------



## Curious99

Water wells near fracked gas wells report contamination with chemicals and gases (we’ve all seen the pictures of flaming faucets and garden hoses). Industry officials say that the contamination is not due to fracking. There is a lot out there on the controversy.

The intro line on the thread was “Despite claims from anti-fracking activists that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water…” which seemed to imply a link between water use and ground water contamination.  The Texas study did not bear that out.


----------



## Gilligan

The Cove Point LNG expansion seems to be receiving a fair amount of attention from both sides lately...

Hacks Lack Facts in Frack Attacks | Washington Free Beacon


----------



## Gilligan

More fracking good information.

Photos confirm flaming water existed before fracking in Texas | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Blister

Chris0nllyn said:


> I find it a bit hard to believe that fracking actually uses less water.
> 
> They pressure pump water down a well, while coal and nuke plants simply pump in river water.
> 
> unless I'm missing something...



You are missing several steps. Steam turbine units, whether coal, oil, gas or nuclear need demineralized boiler water to run the steam turbine. Generally starting off as ground water. More efficient combined cycle gas turbines use the exhaust heat of the turbine to make steam to turn a turbine-generator, more ground water. River water is generally only used to condense the steam back to water to start the boiler cycle over again. Modern pollution control systems for boilers and gas turbines need millions of gallons of fresh water daily to treat the exhaust to reduce emissions. Just look at the steam plumes rising from Morgantown and Chalk Point now that they were required to add scrubbers. Millions of gallons of fresh water everyday at each plant going up as water vapor. Chalk Pt. is ground water, Morgantown is river water that has undergone an expensive Reverse Osmosis process to desalinate it. They were denied permits to take the needed amount of water from wells due to a concern about the aquifers in the area.


----------



## Curious99

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/7/

Some more detail on the Parker County story. The Oil companies (including Range) have deep pockets, friends in high places, and they are very aggressive. Reminds me of the tobacco companies. If the industry doesn't get ahead of this, the fracking boom may be short lived which would be too bad, gas is a good fuel.


----------



## Gilligan

I've yet to see any concrete evidence that fracking activities have caused well water contamination or gas intrusion. The EPA and other groups have been vigorously looking for it for years...and nothing. For that "Gasland" movie, the producers had to completely fake it, and got caught too.

Other things cause well water contamination, of course, and natural gas has been coming up in water from shallow wells since man first started drilling them.


----------



## lsheeline

Blister said:


> Millions of gallons of fresh water everyday at each plant going up as water vapor. Chalk Pt. is ground water, Morgantown is river water that has undergone an expensive Reverse Osmosis process to desalinate it. They were denied permits to take the needed amount of water from wells due to a concern about the aquifers in the area.



Blister - do you have any sources for this, that I can read up on? I didn't realize water was the issue. Many thanks!


----------



## Larry Gude

Gilligan said:


> I've yet to see any concrete evidence that fracking activities have caused well water contamination or gas intrusion. The EPA and other groups have been vigorously looking for it for years...and nothing. For that "Gasland" movie, the producers had to completely fake it, and got caught too.
> 
> Other things cause well water contamination, of course, and natural gas has been coming up in water from shallow wells since man first started drilling them.



Ok, but, in the mean time, 'fracturing' what amounts to the earths crust can't be harmless. By definition, we're cracking what were pockets of fuel. It's not like we're tapping a keg down there and it all comes up through one spout. 

Do you really trust we're getting honesty from either end of the argument?


----------



## Merlin99

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, but, in the mean time, 'fracturing' what amounts to the earths crust can't be harmless. By definition, we're cracking what were pockets of fuel. It's not like we're tapping a keg down there and it all comes up through one spout.
> 
> Do you really trust we're getting honesty from either end of the argument?


If you don't have the prerequisite engineering background, you have to take the experts opinion. So far I've only seen one side trot out real experts, the other side usually goes for an emotional appeal.


----------



## Larry Gude

Merlin99 said:


> If you don't have the prerequisite engineering background, you have to take the experts opinion. So far I've only seen one side trot out real experts, the other side usually goes for an emotional appeal.



The side that is saying this is perfectly safe?


----------



## Ken King

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, but, in the mean time, *'fracturing' what amounts to the earths crust can't be harmless.* By definition, we're cracking what were pockets of fuel. It's not like we're tapping a keg down there and it all comes up through one spout.
> 
> Do you really trust we're getting honesty from either end of the argument?



Given that the crust is already fractured and continues to fracture as the various plates continuously move over, under, and around one another, how much damage do these "man-made" fractures really cause?


----------



## Gilligan

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, but, in the mean time, 'fracturing' what amounts to the earths crust can't be harmless.



It "can't" be?  Why not?

Meanwhile, I received a copy of the FERC Environmental Assessment for the Cove Point project in Friday's mail. Looking forward to reading in while I'm traveling later this week.


----------



## SamSpade

Even without being an expert, there's something weird to me about believing that a well dug a few hundred feet down is being contaminated by a process being done a couple MILES down. Most of the faucet on fire things I've seen happened to the same well water before anyone had ever heard of fracking.


----------



## Gilligan

SamSpade said:


> Even without being an expert, there's something weird to me about believing that a well dug a few hundred feet down is being contaminated by a process being done a couple MILES down. Most of the faucet on fire things I've seen happened to the same well water before anyone had ever heard of fracking.



That.


----------



## Gilligan

More fracking news that isn't news..

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140811204520-1381386-reservoir-unaffected-by-drilling-fracking-a-story-worth-of-discussion?_mSplash=1


----------



## Blister

lsheeline said:


> Blister - do you have any sources for this, that I can read up on? I didn't realize water was the issue. Many thanks!


Sorry I never reread this thread, but here is an old one from before construction. Morgantown did have to build the desalination plant, but Chalk Point is still pumping groundwater.
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/6661


----------



## Larry Gude

SamSpade said:


> Even without being an expert, there's something weird to me about believing that a well dug a few hundred feet down is being contaminated by a process being done a couple MILES down. Most of the faucet on fire things I've seen happened to the same well water before anyone had ever heard of fracking.



OK, but, what also should give great pause is that the 'under world' is not static. Everything moves. Water comes to the surface. Oil is lighter than water. It makes intuitive sense that 'fracking' is not some benign, harmless operation. So, it becomes a question of cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment. Fracking, clearly, is messing things up. Is it worth it?

Heck, a decade ago, fracking proponents made the argument that the potential damage and contamination would make more than enough money to make it a very small and worth it cost to just ship in drinking water to affected people. That's an admission and a justification.


----------



## kwillia

Larry Gude said:


> OK, but, what also should give great pause is that the 'under world' is not static. Everything moves. Water comes to the surface. Oil is lighter than water. It makes intuitive sense that 'fracking' is not some benign, harmless operation. So, it becomes a question of cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment. Fracking, clearly, is messing things up. Is it worth it?
> 
> Heck, a decade ago, fracking proponents made the argument that the potential damage and contamination would make more than enough money to make it a very small and worth it cost to just ship in drinking water to affected people. That's an admission and a justification.


I agree with you, Larry. Case in point is the frequent farting the earth is currently doing in Siberia due to permafrost thawing.


----------



## MMDad

Larry Gude said:


> Fracking, clearly, is messing things up.



Even the EPA will only go so far as to say that there may possibly be a chance of something being messed up. In more than 50 years that fracking has been used, there have been a total of zero documented cases of groundwater being contaminated.

How can you say that it is clear?


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> Even the EPA will only go so far as to say that there may possibly be a chance of something being messed up. In more than 50 years that fracking has been used, there have been a total of zero documented cases of groundwater being contaminated.
> 
> How can you say that it is clear?



I suppose it's the opposite of saying "drilling into the earth, pumping stuff down in there specifically to 'frack' stuff is harmless because the government says so". 

It's just one of those things that, innately, you say to yourself, well, I do, "Well, maybe it can be done but, there seems to be some pretty obvious reason to be concerned". 

Is the risk manageable? Maybe so. Is it worth it? Maybe so.


----------



## MMDad

Larry Gude said:


> I suppose it's the opposite of saying "drilling into the earth, pumping stuff down in there specifically to 'frack' stuff is harmless because the government says so".
> 
> It's just one of those things that, innately, you say to yourself, well, I do, "Well, maybe it can be done but, there seems to be some pretty obvious reason to be concerned".
> 
> Is the risk manageable? Maybe so. Is it worth it? Maybe so.



Of course there's risk. There's risk in everythign. But risk does not equate to "clearly messing things up."

And if you think that EPA wouldn't shut down fracking if they could then you haven't been paying attention to what they do.


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> Of course there's risk. There's risk in everythign. But risk does not equate to "clearly messing things up."
> 
> And if you think that EPA wouldn't shut down fracking if they could then you haven't been paying attention to what they do.



Ok, we're quibbling here. Fracking, the operation of, is 'messing' things up from the standpoint that is it drilling into the earth, pumping stuff in, displacing other stuff and masquerading as virtually zero risk. We're creating voids. We're cracking up sub surface. If you don't like 'messing' things up, what would be a better word, 'changing' things?


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> And if you think that EPA wouldn't shut down fracking if they could then you haven't been paying attention to what they do.



Now you are changing the conversation to politics, like a manic, ADD, short attention span, frantic, manic depressive going from highs to lows.


----------



## MMDad

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, we're quibbling here. Fracking, the operation of, is 'messing' things up from the standpoint that is it drilling into the earth, pumping stuff in, displacing other stuff and masquerading as virtually zero risk. We're creating voids. We're cracking up sub surface. If you don't like 'messing' things up, what would be a better word, 'changing' things?



That's like saying that Taco Bell is clearly "messing up" the weather because farts contain methane. You are focussing on a tiny part of the big picture. Sure, it seems like fracking would be causing major disruptions. Until you look at the actual scale of what's being done. We've been drilling for oil for over a century. Compared to the natural processes taking place below our feet right now, I just don't see how fracking amounts to anything more than a flea bite on an elephants ass.

For someone who is skeptical of climate hysteria without scientific data to back it up, you sure are jumping on the fracking panic hard.


----------



## MMDad

Larry Gude said:


> Now you are changing the conversation to politics, like a manic, ADD, short attention span, frantic, manic depressive going from highs to lows.


You're the one who discounted EPA as if they are some sort of pro-fracking cheerleaders. If you look at them, you'll see that they've been begging anyone to come up with a case that they can actually document so that they can finally do what they live for - regulate fracking out of business.


----------



## Gilligan

Larry Gude said:


> Heck, a decade ago, fracking proponents made the argument that the potential damage and contamination would make more than enough money to make it a very small and worth it cost to just ship in drinking water to affected people. That's an admission and a justification.



So ...has anyone's drinking water been proven to have been contaminated in any way by fracking activity?


----------



## Gilligan

MMDad said:


> You're the one who discounted EPA as if they are some sort of pro-fracking cheerleaders. If you look at them, you'll see that they've been begging anyone to come up with a case that they can actually document so that they can finally do what they live for - regulate fracking out of business.



That. The EPA invested a tremendous amount of time and resources to try and prove their foregone conclusions about fracking..and very, very reluctantly had to report their actual findings instead.


----------



## MMDad

Gilligan said:


> So ...has anyone's drinking water been proven to have been contaminated in any way by fracking activity?



Come on now, they've only been fracking for about half a century. It's guaranteed to happen since it is "clearly messing things up." Or maybe the fractivists at the EPA are intentionally ignoring the "clearly messed up" water.


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> , you sure are jumping on the fracking panic hard.



That would be an exaggeration and I guess you're just bored today. I didn't say or claim anything dramatic or hyperbolic. I didn't scream the sky is falling. So, I guess this is where we are today; if someone isn't going over board, pretend they are?


----------



## kwillia

Nature always fills a void. If you kill the grass along your walkway, weeds will take over The permafrost is melting in Siberia so the methane is building where ice used to be. If you get rid of snakes the rodent population takes over. If you get rid of bats the bugs take over, etc. etc.   I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Gilligan

kwillia said:


> Nature always fills a void..



So do cable news program directors.


----------



## MMDad

kwillia said:


> Nature always fills a void. If you kill the grass along your walkway, weeds will take over The permafrost is melting in Siberia so the methane is building where ice used to be. If you get rid of snakes the rodent population takes over. If you get rid of bats the bugs take over, etc. etc.   I'm just sayin'.



What void? The ones where we pumped oil out of the ground and the whole ocean drained out?


----------



## MMDad

Larry Gude said:


> That would be an exaggeration and I guess you're just bored today. I didn't say or claim anything dramatic or hyperbolic. I didn't scream the sky is falling. So, I guess this is where we are today; if someone isn't going over board, pretend they are?



"Clearly messing things up" when there is absolutely zero evidence in more than 50 years isn't an overreaction?


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> "Clearly messing things up" when there is absolutely zero evidence in more than 50 years isn't an overreaction?






> Hydraulic fracturing is the fracturing of rock by a pressurized liquid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally—certain veins or dikes are examples. Induced hydraulic fracturing (also hydrofracturing, fracking, and fraccing) is a well-stimulation technique in which a high-pressure fluid (usually water mixed with sand and chemicals) is injected into a wellbore in order to create small fractures (usually less than 1.0 mm wide) in the deep-rock formations in order to allow natural gas, petroleum, and brine to migrate to the well. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminium oxide) hold open the small fractures once the deep rock achieves geologic equilibrium.




Silly me. How could there be ANY mess involved with that? Why, it's virtually all natural! It's not scare tactics or hyperbole to observe that that is, perhaps, maybe, a messy process. 


Look, if you wanna forum fight, you're gonna have to go find another dance partner.


----------



## Gilligan

Larry Gude said:


> Silly me. How could there be ANY mess involved with that? Why, it's virtually all natural! It's not scare tactics or hyperbole to observe that that is, perhaps, maybe, a messy process.
> 
> 
> Look, if you wanna forum fight, you're gonna have to go find another dance partner.



No matter....it's something we're going to keep doing more of and indefinitely and it sure is working.


----------



## MMDad

Larry Gude said:


> Silly me. How could there be ANY mess involved with that? Why, it's virtually all natural! It's not scare tactics or hyperbole to observe that that is, perhaps,* maybe*, a messy process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> small fractures (usually less than 1.0 mm wide) in the deep-rock formations in order to allow natural gas, petroleum, and brine to migrate to the well. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminium oxide) hold open the small fractures once the deep rock achieves geologic equilibrium.
Click to expand...


1.0 mm!!!! OMG!!!! That dwarfs any naturally occuring cracks like the San Andreas!!! Quick, put on your tin foil hat, build an ark, and buy a fallout shelter! The end is nigh!!!!

Here you did say "maybe." Maybe is a good word. Much better than "clearly." Glad to see that you have finally agreed with me.


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> 1.0 mm!!!! OMG!!!! That dwarfs any naturally occuring cracks like the San Andreas!!! Quick, put on your tin foil hat, build an ark, and buy a fallout shelter! The end is nigh!!!!
> 
> Here you did say "maybe." Maybe is a good word. Much better than "clearly." Glad to see that you have finally agreed with me.



I'm all about making people happy.


----------

